People have used smokeless tobacco for decades and even centuries. Today, an estimated 20 million Americans use smokeless tobacco products. Many believe that they avoid the dangers of smoking tobacco. They believe that by not inhaling the tar of cigarettes, they avoid the lung cancer so prevalent among smokers. But smokeless tobacco has its own problems.
Smokeless tobacco irritates the gums, causes them to recede, and ultimately may cause the teeth to loosen. It also irritates the inside lips, cheeks, and at times the throat. Additionally, smokeless tobacco causes sores inside the cheeks. These sores are known as leukoplakia. These sores appear as white patches, typically between the cheeks and gums.
Additionally, smokeless tobacco is increasingly viewed as a primary cause of mouth cancer. The smokeless tobacco contains nitrosamine, cadmium, and other chemicals. Short term users may be four times as likely to develop cancer as nonusers and long term users may be fifty times as likely to develop cancer as nonusers. The risks of tumors are greatest at the place where the plug or dip of tobacco is held, typically between the cheek and gum.
Smokeless tobacco may also lead to addiction. It appears that direct contact of the tobacco with the mucous membrane combined with the extended time that the smokeless tobacco is held between the cheek and gum creates a localized concentrated level of nicotine which is absorbed through the mucous membranes. Smokeless tobacco contains high levels of nicotine; some researchers have proposed that dipping with smokeless tobacco is more addictive than smoking tobacco, because higher levels of nicotine are released into the bloodstream during use. Unfortunately, users suffer through the same pangs of withdrawal as smokers, with symptoms that include irritability, anxiety, insomnia, and impaired concentration. For some, to stop using smokeless tobacco is simply not perceived as worth the symptoms of withdrawal.
The typical focus to those seeking to avoid the above problems is to try to stop the tobacco's use. Such efforts may emphasize quitting or substituting artificial products for the smokeless tobacco. Programs include a national ban on smokeless tobacco television advertising since 1986 and warnings on the tobacco cans stating, "This product may cause mouth cancer." Legislation and articles are aimed usually at stopping dipping or otherwise using smokeless tobacco. Some programs suggest substituting the tobacco nicotine with nicotine gum. This practice minimizes the direct chemical contact of smokeless tobacco. Another option is a mint flavored snuff which is advertised as containing no tobacco and no nicotine.
These advertisements, programs, and products provide a substitute. They do not address the problem of continuing to use tobacco while lessening the risk of using the tobacco. While abstinence may be commendable, it does not address lessening the discomfort and other effects for those who refuse or are unable to stop. Also, it does not provide the physiological effects of nicotine from true tobacco. Therefore, some individuals simply will continue to use tobacco.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,346,734 ("'734") attempts to address these problems. It discloses a preformed, relatively thick (0.025" or 25 mills), perforated latex pouch with closed ends for use with smokeless tobacco. The pouch requires cutting to conform to the depth of the user's mouth. However, the preformed pouch does not fit all mouths because mouths and bone structures are different. That invention appears to be made to fit between the front lower gum and front lower lip only. However, most "dippers" only use the front part of the mouth when the sides are too sore from the direct contact of the tobacco fibers. So, the '734 disclosure has limited application. The '734 device seems unsanitary. After the user finally cuts the shape to fit, he would seemingly want to continue to reuse it or relegate himself to cutting a new mouthpiece each time he dips. The perforations can become clogged and lead to further unsanitary conditions on reuse. Additionally, in the field, such as hiking, fishing, and so forth, there may be no place to rinse and clean the '734 apparatus. Also, it seems to disclose a perforated device only. It also seems inconvenient to carry. The user in the field must make the apparatus stay in his mouth for the duration or find a suitable place for storage, other than a bare pocket. It appears difficult and messy to pack. The '734 requires either carrying a pair of scissors or having enough foresight to pre-form enough mouthpieces or to use the same one repeatedly. These limiting options are especially burdensome when the typical user dips an average of 4-7 times daily, depending on his activities. The '734 disclosure teaches away from biodegradable embodiments in that the intent appears to be that a user would purchase the molded mouthpiece, trim it particularly for the user's mouth, then reuse it to gain the benefit from the extra work of trimming. Such an arrangement appears not conducive to ready disposability and biodegradability. It would also seem to interfere with speech and drinking because of its formed structure and thickness. In summary, the '734 device does not appear to answer the needs of a typical smokeless tobacco user. A typical smokeless user will probably not use the '734 device routinely, if at all. Thus, the problems of using smokeless tobacco are not effectively solved.
Even after decades of use and efforts by some, what remains then is the lack of a suitable device, method, or system for addressing the needs of those who use smokeless tobacco. A solution is needed that will protect oral tissues from the concentrated levels of chemicals which appear to be a result of the direct contact of tobacco fibers. The solution should be commercially feasible. This aspect involves the expense to manufacture and purchase. It also involves: the compactness and ability to be stored; flexibility to conform to variations between various users' mouths and within different locations of an user's mouth; minimal interference with the normal routine of dipping so as to encourage use of the solution; minimal interference with normal occurrences throughout the day such as speaking and drinking; sanitary and clean to use; and in general so natural and convenient that the user could routinely chose to use the solution with his regular dipping habits.